Individual Application

The Facts

The incumbent chamber of the Court of Cassation, after examining the actions for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages brought on grounds of the judge’s liability due to losing a case before the magistrate’s court based on a false expert report, dismissed the case with the appeal remedy being available. Upon appeal, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation (“the General Assembly”) dismissed the appeal request with no right of further appeal, on the grounds that the value of the claim was below the financial threshold for appeal, rendering the appeal remedy unavailable due to the monetary limitation.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that his right of access to a court had been violated, arguing that his appeal against the decision dismissing the action for damages brought against the State on grounds of the judge’s liability had been rejected due to the impugned amount’s being below the statutory threshold for appeal.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, the Court of Cassation in its capacity as the first instance court dismissed the action for damages brought by the applicant against the State on grounds of the judge’s liability. The applicant’s subsequent appeal was not examined by the General Assembly on the grounds that the value of the claim was below the financial threshold for appeal.

The Court has considered that the systematic interpretation by the General Assembly of the financial threshold for appeals in cases regarding the judge’s liability was foreseeable for the parties involved. Given that the applicant’s appeal request was rejected based on Article 362 § 1 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure no. 6100, the Court has concluded that the impugned interference met the criterion of legality. In addition, considering the objective of ensuring the expeditious conclusion of the proceedings, the interference pursued a legitimate aim.

In the present case, the impugned interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court by rejecting his appeal due to the value of the claim falling below the statutory threshold was reasonable and necessary for reducing the appeal authorities’ workload.

It has been observed that the regulation of judges’ liability arising from judicial activities and the requirement that actions for damages to be brought based on such liability be heard by a high court (the relevant civil chamber of the Court of Cassation) per se constitute a safeguard for the parties involved. Thus, it appears that despite the existence of a statutory threshold, certain balancing measures/mechanisms are in place. In this regard, considering, inter alia, the value of the claim, the interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court due to the rejection of his appeal did not impose an excessive burden on the him and was proportionate to the public interest pursued. Therefore, it has been concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right of access to a court was proportionate.

Consequently, the Court has found no violation of the right of access to a court under the right to a fair trial